User talk:RP459/Archive 1

Welcome!
 Hi RP459, and Welcome to Wikipedia!  Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

--- Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:


 * Table of Contents


 * Department directory

Need help?


 * Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
 * Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.


 * Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
 * The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:


 * Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.


 * Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...


 * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The [[Image:Signature_icon.png]] button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.


 * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

 Good luck, and have fun.

Tagging stubs
Thanks for asking!

At least it used to be that the stub tag in it self implied that the article had so many short comings and lacked several things so further tagging was redundant. I'm not sure if this has changed, but on the Template:Unreferenced page it says "Consider not adding this template to extremely short articles", which I guess means stubs.

In general I'm not a big fan of top-tagging articles with meta-tags as they are off topic. I think an encyclopedia article on, say, Pietas (goddess) should begin with explaining who the goddess is/was and not start with a note about editing wikipedia, and that we as much as possible should use the talk page when we discuss and suggest improvements to the article. But I realize that I'm in the minority on this issue and that top tagging articles with all sorts of things are now common. Back in the old days when the stub tag was made it was (and still is) meant to be put more discretely at the bottom of the article, exactly because top tagging with it was seen as distracting the reader from the article topic. Which is, after all, what the reader came there to learn about. For more on this you can read my (now admittedly old and somewhat outdated rant on the issue of tagging.

So that's my personal stand on this, but it's just my opinion. As a compromise I've come to accept having the tag in an empty references section where people looking for references will find it (though it's rather easy to see if an article lacks any references, so even that is redundant in my opinion, but, oh well...).

Back to stubs: I think we could add many tags to stubs if we wanted since they lack so much, but that tags are especially dominating and distracting on stubs, and that they really just state the obvious. Everyone can see that the stub you tagged doesn't have any references. So, in short, I find the tag distracting, off topic and redundant. Especially on stubs.

But that's just me. People have different opinions on the issue, and that's fine. Shanes (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Schleicher ASK 23‎‎
Hello fellow glider pilot. You tagged the article on the Schleicher ASK 23‎ as lacking in-line citations. As the tag points out, this does not mean the article has no references, merely they are not in-line. When an article is replete with statistics, the problem comes in deciding which fact needs a citation. If every fact were referenced, the article would look very odd indeed. In fact it would be unique among all other aircraft articles. Would you be a little more specific in saying which facts are in particular need of an in-line citation and why the references at the bottom are insufficient in these cases. JMcC (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Replied to User_talk:Jmcc150/Archive3

Aviation Userboxes
Thanks for adding your aviation userboxes to Userboxes/Aviation. I also added your User:RP459/Userboxes/RecPermit. As you probably gathered I collected up all the aviation userboxes I could find and put them all on that new WikiProject UBX page, so if you find any others please do add them there. - Ahunt (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks for that! I have also been meaning to get on and do all the Blue Yonder Aircraft for a while - the Twin is next. I have an advantage: I did all the reviews of these aircraft for COPA Flight, which means that I can cite the articles as refs and avoid the WP:OR problem! You probably saw the Blue Yonder Nav box - that kind of shows my plan for putting together articles on the aircraft and the compnay. Actually one thing we will really need which I don't have is a photo or two of the EZ King Cobra - I have photos of the Harvard. If you have any or are in a position to take some that would be great as I will put that article together soon too. I hope you will contribute to these articles - they all need help!- Ahunt (talk) 14:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note on the EZ King Cobra. According to TC there has only been one EZ King Cobra built (C-IFWW) and it is listed as being owned by Jack Barlass. You could check with Wayne and see where it is, but I think the listed owner may be deceased. - Ahunt (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Blue Yonder EZ Harvard & Blue Yonder EZ King Cobra articles are done. I added Harvard pix, so just waiting for King Cobra photos! - Ahunt (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Blue Yonder Twin Engine EZ Flyer
Done another one - have a look when you have a chance! - Ahunt (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note on the talk page. Blue Yonder EZ Harvard and Blue Yonder EZ King Cobra and done too, as is Blue Yonder Aviation. We mostly need some pictures of the King Cobra. - Ahunt (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I checked and it appears that there is only one... It is registered to someone in Calgary so I am planning on calling him and asking if I can take some pix next time he has it out... RP459 (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Good plan, as noted above I think that person died about five years ago, though, unless I am thinking of someone else. You may want to check with Wayne to find out where it is! - Ahunt (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks I missed that I will talk to Wayne RP459 (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note! At least you located the EZ King Cobra!! That would be great if you can get a photo once it is back together and add it to the Blue Yonder EZ King Cobra article - it looks a bit bare without one. Speaking of which, any other photos you can get of other Blue Yonder types would be helpful, too. Some of the other articles are a bit bare, too! - Ahunt (talk) 12:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Navy Reserve
Hello, I'm trying to fix the Navy Reserve page so it has all of the proper verifications. I thought I had all of the citations and footnotes I needed when you put the inline citation notice up again. What section of the article do you feel needs better citations and how can I fix this to get the article up to standards? --MC2merriam (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Have a look at HTTP Secure it is a good example of proper inline citations, currently you have inline linking and a list of sources at the end but not "inline citations" RP459 (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Revision of Evergreen Aviation & Space Museum entry
I am curious about your choice to cut the number of items listed for the Evergreen Aviation & Space Museum's Key Holdings. I realize that I am somewhat biased in this, as I am the Curator at Evergreen, but I feel it's important for users to know what is available at a musuem from the point of view of doing research, or actually going to see an object in person. Besides, I would be hard pressed to say that a DeHavilland Vampire is more "key" to our collection than our P-38L Lightning, FG-1D Corsair or the prototype Curtiss-Wright CW-A22 Falcon. (I know many who would argue the exact opposite; that the latter three are more significant and/or "key" than the Vampire.)

I think a good example is the Wikipedia entry for the National Museum of the United States Air Force. This lists all the aircraft in the museum's collection, giving the user an understanding of what the museum collects and the scope of its holdings. If I need to know if a particular variant of an aircraft is at the museum, I can go through the list to check. Granted it does not include every bombsight, uniform, flying helmet or ground power unit; it just covers the "key" artifacts.

Would it be more acceptable to show the entire list of aircraft if the sub-section were entitled, "Collection" versus "Key Holdings"? I've made that change, with an eye towards re-instating the full list of our air and space craft.

To me, the wonderful thing about the web is that you can find an incredible amount of information on subjects both famous and obscure. I had hoped that by showing a detailed list of the Evergreen holdings that it would help readers understand the richness of the collection. Thus, I have been adding as much information as I can over the last few months, including serial numbers, etc. and providing links to pages about the aircraft that are on display. (After all, as curator, I am the primary source for information on the Evergreen collection...) By randomly editing the list of the museum's holdings, it cuts down on the usefulness of the page to both researchers and the casual user, and to what end; brevity? I'm hoping you're not planning on doing this to other air museum pages, as I think it would be to the detriment of all aviation museum enthusiasts.

Swbailey97128 (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Replied to on User_talk:Swbailey97128, RP459 (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I will see if we can build a concensus on the museum's talk page. I agree that the list of artifacts for many museums can be very long, but luckily as an air museum, the things we collect are fairly large and we can't keep more than about 150 or so. Thanks too for siting the page about the posting of original research; I should have worded it more carefully to say that I have access to the primary data such as the log books for the aircraft indicating where they have been and what units they served with, etc. I very much support the idea that Wikipedia be based on fact and not opinion, estimation or guess-work. There's too much of that on the internet as it is.

Again,I appreciate your thoughts and suggestions. Swbailey97128 (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Tailhook
I think that this edition http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=F-15_Eagle&diff=167812942&oldid=167811915 triggered the Land-based tailhooks section. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied to on User talk:Necessary Evil RP459 (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome!
 Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can [ watchlist it] if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: WPMILHIST Announcements.
 * Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
 * We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
 * We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
 * If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
 * The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Roger Davies talk 20:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

To our newest Rollbacker
I have just granted you rollback rights because I believe you to be trustworthy, and because you have a history of reverting vandalism and have given in the past or are trusted in the future to give appropriate warnings. Please have a read over WP:ROLLBACK and remember that rollback is only for use against obvious vandalism. Please use it that way (it can be taken away by any admin at a moment's notice). You may want to consider adding Rollback and User rollback to your userpage. Any questions, please drop me a line. Best of luck and thanks for volunteering!  wadester 16  02:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hehe, hey thanks!  wadester 16  03:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem! Its actually a list of "friendly admins, who are awesome and whom I can ask questions", but that title was too long :)
 * Sounds good either way.  wadester 16  23:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion
Just a suggestion, but you should probably try the PROD path before going directly to AfD. It reduces the load on the AfD process by checking if there may be no objections. Sometimes creators, once made aware of the requirements through this process, think, "Oh, okay, well I guess it doesn't qualify," and move on. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks I will start doing that. RP459 (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
BTW, it looks like you've already started doing as I suggest, keep it up :D - Kingpin13 (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Nirvaha
Hello RP459, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Nirvaha - a page you tagged - because: Not unambiguously promotional. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was unsure if I should prod this article or speedy it, I have now prod'd it, and I guess I know in future if in doubt prod rather than speedy. RP459 (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, sounds good. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Vittoria S.p.A.
Hello RP459, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Vittoria S.p.A. has been removed. It was removed by Bike21 with the following edit summary ' (Improving article with external references) '. Please consider discussing your concerns with Bike21 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Articles for deletion nomination of JK Wedding Entrance Dance
I have nominated JK Wedding Entrance Dance, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/JK Wedding Entrance Dance. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. —  Σ  xplicit 05:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"Nora Wall"
I declined the speedy tag for this -- I have to say that it was VERY difficult to work out what was going on, because the article's creator was as unhelpful as possible, but I realized that the author was asserting copyright over a previous version of the article that had been deleted as copyvio. As you can see I'm sympathetic as to why you tagged it, it was an incomprehensible mess when you found it, but I wanted you to know that it had been declined. Accounting4Taste: talk 23:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for the message, I appreciate it. RP459 (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Wolfe Video
Hello RP459, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Wolfe Video - a page you tagged - because: Not unambiguous advertising. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know.  So Why  11:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article is no longer unambiguous advertising as the article has been improved significantly since I tagged it for speedy deletion. Please have a look at the state of the article immediately prior to me tagging it here [].  I stand by my speedy tag at that time, however as you requested I will review the criteria for CSD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RP459 (talk • contribs)
 * I'm afraid to say so but it did not meet the criteria at that time as well. An article that goes "We are the best, buy XXX" meets G11. An article that only contains facts mixed with some weasel words ("largest", "popular" etc.) can be fixed through editing and is thus not a candidate for G11. You might want to remember it this way: "If you cut away all the spammy bits and you have a valid stub afterwards, then it's not a G11". If you need any further help, please feel free to ask. Also, remember to sign on talk pages, even your own :-) Regards  So Why  14:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That helps a bunch I will keep it in mind going forward. RP459 (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Deprodding
A user is allowed to remove the prod from their own article. Please do not revert such edits. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I noted further that you instructed the author to use the hangon template. That template is for db tags only, not for prods.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have been doing way too much new page patrolling lately, my apologies, I know better and I am not sure why I treated this like a CSD :(

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September! Many thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Global Risk Management
Hello RP459, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Global Risk Management has been removed. It was removed by Dkeditor with the following edit summary ' (I've removed the proposed deletion notice, having improved the article further and adding a Notes section -- which I believe underlines notability . Please see my talk page for specifics) '. Please consider discussing your concerns with Dkeditor before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Re: WP:UAA
Needed a bit more privacy; my username made it too easy to figure out who I was. I figured people that wanted to find me would though, like you. I just don't want random passersby to get suspicious and be like... "is that... so-&-so?", then look at my contribs, and figure out who I am.  upstate NYer  02:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back to me, I completely understand. It was neat tracking you down I had not realized that pretty much everything outside of the archives would be changed over to your new name.  RP459 (talk) 02:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, thankfully. :)  upstate NYer  02:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!
Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September! For the coordinators,  Roger Davies  talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: Articles for deletion/Global Risk Management
Would you consider userfying the article which you put up for deletion? The will delete the article from main space completely and move it to a sub-page of the creators.

The editor is a new editor, and this will give the new user a chance to rework this article and maybe wikipedia will get a long term dedicated editor

Please let me know as soon as possible, because as soon as someone else comments on the AfD, they must agree also before I can userfy the article. Thanks for your time.Ikip (talk) 00:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * sounds like a good idea to me go for it! RP459 (talk) 03:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Original Editor Reply: To quote wikipedia itself, "neutrality trumps popularity." As mentioned previously, the Google News search fails to reveal a lot of trade media sources that are subscription-based (particularly common in the maritime business). A regular Google web search reveals a number of these in regards to the company in question. Google News search also omits non-English language news items about this company -- which is, after all, based in Denmark.

"Raw "hit" (search result) count is a very crude measure of importance. Some unimportant subjects have many "hits", some notable ones have few or none..." from [the Search Engline Test page]

In order to establish notability, I've continued to add more "Notes" to the page. It now includes verifiable sources such as Denmark's national news agency, several national newspapers, and non-subscription trade media websites in English and Danish. I've chosen a spread of dates, from 2006 to today (Bunker Index is one of several daily online bunker sites that carry Global Risk Management oil price assessments. Unfortunately, the others are subscription based).

A word about the Danish sources: A number of the sources I've included are articles by national newspapers using Global Risk Management for quotes and analysis on shifts in the oil price. I think that adds even more weight to the notability of the company. If in doubt, perhaps it might be useful to call in a Scandinavian editor to verify the notability of the Danish sources.

A word about procedure: Shouldn't there have been some form of discussion about the reasons for my dePROD (I think that's the right term) before referral to a general discussion? The debate seems to be moving rather quickly towards "userfying" the article without anybody discussing the validity of my article sources and notability. Can we discuss notability beyond Google News search results?

I'm a newcomer to this, so could somebody give me feedback to this reply i.e. is it posted in the right place, and in the right manner.

Thanks. Dkeditor (talk) 11:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * RP459, thank you for your time, my proposal only works if there has been no other editors who commented in the discussion. Since Dkeditor, did, the AFD will run its course. In the future, you can also consider merging and redirecting with no needed conversation beforehand (although this is encouraged). Ikip (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Dkeditor I do appreciate the effort that you are making to show notability in this article and you make have succeeded, the results of the AFD will determine that. In response to your observation about procedure you removed the prod (which is totally ok) and gave your reasons for it.  I disagreed with your reason as I still do so I moved the discussion to AFD.  Could there have been more discussion prior to moving to AFD?  Possibly, but seeing as how I still disagreed with your viewpoint I decided to send it to a place where more viewpoints could be heard on the matter, as I am most certainly not always correct as to if something passes WP:NOTABILITY and can only express my opinion.   Please do not take my proposing your article for deletion as a personal attack, it is not one, it merely reflects my view that it does not warrant inclusion in the Wiki RP459 (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello RP459: Thanks for your appreciation of my effort and kind words. Don't worry, I certainly haven't taken your deletion proposal as a personal attack. I assume good faith, so why should I? I think this is a good process we're putting the page through. Re procedure, it's a little late to argue the pros and cons of discussion that should or should not have taken place. Let's move on and argue the pros and cons of whether the article satisfies the 5 points listed at WP:GNG. I've rewritten the article to include more inline citations. I think it helps, but what do you think? Thanks. Dkeditor (talk) 11:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Value Drug Mart
Hello!

Just a friendly heads-up that I removed the PROD notice from the above article. I think the subject easily passes WP:CORP even though it may need additional sources. I've added a couple but please feel free to let me know if you disagree with its notability so we can take it to AfD.

Peace! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for working to fix this article, I think it still needs more refs, but will wait a couple of days before deciding on sending it to AFD as people are working on establishing notability, good luck and thanks trying to save this article. RP459 (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the courteous response! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Account creation system
RP459, thank you for your interest in helping users creating accounts. Your request has been approved. I advise you to read WP:ACCG before you use the system.

At this time, you are allowed to create up to six accounts per day. You won't be able to create an account with a similar name to that of another user. However, if you have reached the limit frequently, you can request the account creator permission at WP:RPE.

Again, thanks for your interest in the account creation system. Join us on IRC at wikipedia-en-accounts and subscribe to the mailing list by going here. Willking1979 (talk) 01:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)
The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Maconomy proposed deletion
Hi RP459

I can see that you've proposed the Maconomy article I've put up for deletion.

I'm so sorry to read this and I'm not sure I understand why - I had a go-ahead from your administrator Jimfbleak who guided me through the notability guidelines, which should make the article good enough for Wikipedia.

It would be great, if you could help me make the article better or more notable. I know that it should be possible.

BR --Jacobdanstrup (talk) 13:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please do not take proposed deletion personally, it is not meant as an insult or a slight, but merely that I feel that the article (as it stood) at the time of PRODing, was "deletable" for the reasons that I mentioned. It does not mean that it will be deleted, you contesting it as you have already has ensured that it will not be deleted through PROD but would need to be discussed on Articles for deletion.  As you seem willing and eager to improve the article I will not be posting the artcile on AFD any time soon.   RP459 (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for getting back to me. I've just really worked to meet the notability guidelines:-) And will continue to do so. Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to improve the content. I will work to incorporate more references, which I know is possible.

BR- --Jacobdanstrup (talk) 12:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Link at Google News
I found three hits on Maconomy at Google News: http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=maconomy

BR --Jacobdanstrup (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Awesome! add them as references (if they work) to the article to back up the independent 3rd party coverage that shows WP:NOTABILITY  RP459 (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up om this, I'll have another look too  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  20:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys - I've also found 43 online hits for Maconomy in September - so I guess that if I find a way to implement some of these as references the article will be in the clear (enhanced notability)? --Jacobdanstrup (talk) 12:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Spotlight newsletter
Hi there. Just a really quick, short note. You're currently listed as a spotlight participant, here, but you are not on the list of people who want to get the newsletter. If you want to receive updates about spotlight, then please add your name on this page. If not, no further action required, and I won't bug you about it again. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  15:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Done! thanks for the heads up, I did not know there was a newsletter... RP459 (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Images of governors general
To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what to do about this. I'm very frustrated with what recently transpired and resulted in the removal of five or six portraits of governors general of Canada from a few lists; I went to much effort to get images of all governors general collected/uploaded and consistently sized and formatted. But, what's done is done, and we're now left to deal with the consequences of a sweep by Wikipedia's always uncompromising copyright police. Until replacements can be found for those images removed, there are, as I see it, two options: 1) delete all the images from the lists, or 2) keep all images and add a filler (File:Can GG NoPic.svg) for those we don't have yet. What do you think? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  14:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I like your option 2, it is a good image and will at least act as a placeholder to maintain consistency within the table. Having dealt with this issue on other pages I will be very surprised if the images survive review, so this may in fact be a long term solution...   RP459 (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay then; I'll try and get to putting them back tomorrow. Thanks for your input. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  05:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Spotlight Newsletter - October
 ChzzBot  ►  23:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of JK Wedding Entrance Dance


The article JK Wedding Entrance Dance has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * The article doesn't meet notability guidelines. Notability justification was given as having "significant coverage" as under WIKI:GNG, but other notability guidelines state that a short burst of news covering a topic does not justify notability by itself.  The video (which the article is about) has had no significant impact on anything notable.  It is just another Internet meme (a short-lived one at that), and very few Internet memes have their own articles, especially not minor ones such as this.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * replied to on talk page PROD has been contested  here Talk:JK_Wedding_Entrance_Dance

2009-10 new user
Thank you for your welcome in my talk page. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Your welcome! If I can ever be of assistance let me know. Je parle francais si vous desierer ausi...   RP459 (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

subst
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When using certain templates on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use &#123;&#123;subst:uw-test1&#125;&#125; instead of &#123;{uw-test1}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Thank you. ''The welcome template should be substituted. E.g. '' Whpq (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks I will start doing that...  RP459 (talk) 00:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Order of the Thistle
Hi RP459, I think you should see the actual page to see why I made those edits. In short, the new template does not take the old fields. 118.90.35.155 (talk) 03:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom Election RFC courtesy notice
A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 2. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. Manning (talk) 08:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)  You received this message because you participated in the earlier ArbCom secret ballot RFC.

Moldova President's Cup
I have removed the prod tag from Moldova President's Cup, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! —Paul A (talk) 07:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding some sources that back this article up, I came up with nothing. RP459 (talk) 15:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Apologies
Not to worry, thank you for getting back to me. Your concerns about Sebwite's experience were what I had thought, then, and were the same concerns I also initially had. It's a moot point anyway because his subsequent answers to questions led me to change my vote to an opposition, but still I appreciate your message. --  At am a  頭 18:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Your comment on my RfA
Hello, this message is just to let you know that I have preceded a comment you forgot to sign on my RfA as unsigned here. Cheers, Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 05:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up on that, my bad. I signed it this morning...  RP459 (talk) 15:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome Message
Thanks for welcome message but that is my 7th month at English Wikipedia. I know main things, but thanks again... ~-- Berkay - Message --~ 17:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was not tying to insinuate that you were a noob :) I place a welcome message on everyone who has signed up for an account, but I notice that their talk page is redlinked when it shows up on my watchlist.  Its just my way of trying to welcome newcomers to the project...  RP459 (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought so, thanks again :D   ~-- Berkay - Message --~  20:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Selsey
Thankyou for tidying up the Selsey page, however I think that you have been somewhat enthusiastic on your deletion of EL's. Two of the links were to the British Museums catalogue of coins found on Selsey beach. I believe that they more than meet the WP:EL guidelines. There is a citation within the history section itself to a book that also catlogues them so the article is secure. I would like to reinstate the EL's as I think that it would be good for vistors to be able to see what the article references. We are talking about several hundred coins so I do not see any other way of doing it. Do you agree?? Best wishes. (Wilfridselsey (talk) 11:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC))
 * I have a slightly different take on WP:EL in this case, I saw that link as: "1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." as it will just be showing pictures of the coins. However I would support a mention of the coins being found in the article proper, possibly in the history section and then using the site as a reference.  That would provide people reading the article with information about the coins as a historic artifact/treasure and provide them the means to do more in depth research on their own...   Would that work?  RP459 (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure that I follow your argument entirely. However, some of the coins are over 2000 years old and were an important historical find, hence why they are in the British Museum! I believe that it is worthwhile for people to see them, even if you go to the museum they may not be on public show, so I am quite happy to take up you suggestion. I will probably say something along the lines that the coins are now in the British Museum in the history section and add put the links in the reference section. Regards (Wilfridselsey (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC))

I am confuse?
Could you help me? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:99.88.50.185 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.50.185 (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Cool user name
I appreciate the compliment! :D

I'm not sure why, but a lot of people seem to find my username particularly amusing. :P

KHAAAAAAAAAAN (talk) 11:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * :) RP459 (talk) 14:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Question
hi what was the problem with my last edit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamhardy2 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure, although your account has now been blocked indef for vandalism so that makes me think that was the problem :) RP459 (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:KPCKim.jpg
An editor has asked for a of File:KPCKim.jpg. Because you were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. The DRV is located here: Deletion review/Log/2009 December 9 Dreadstar ☥  03:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thanks
MrKIA11 (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Skolian Empire
Thanks for the heads up on the AFDs of the main characters in the Skolian Empire series. RP459 (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You must mean on the article talk page. Your welcome.
 * You may also be interested in a group I am part of:


 * I do indeed mean on the article talk page, I did not mean to imply canvasing which it most certainly was not. RP459 (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * :) You can notify editors on their talkpages in certain circumstances. I don't think you fall within one of those circumstances :
 * notifying all editors of a previous AFD
 * notifying significant contributors to the article
 * Thanks for your message :) Ikip 20:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

you appear to have deleted my totally serious section on the KEGS football team
I'd like to know why

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elpresidente91 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I explained it in my edit summary but I will elaborate here.  The edit while made in good faith was unproductive it contained original research see WP:NOR along with a slanted view see WP:NPOV.   RP459 (talk) 03:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for welcome
Thanks for welcome,I am a editor from zh.wikipeida.org ,this is my global account--Mys 721tx (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Gargoyle EPs and Singles
Erm, well, for the last 3 singles I suppose they do not meet notability, but I would argue that the EPs are significant enough to warrant their own articles. The two battle Gargoyle EPs (or at the very least the first) are the only things released under the "Battle Gargoyle" moniker, something unusual in the band's discography. Kaikoroku is also in some ways like the compilations, as it contains rare songs that were otherwise not on other releases or very hard to find (see: the songs on Ugomeki such as Jaaku). Finally, Junreiin contains not only songs that were only on the Satori single, but also contain a song which a music video was shot for... Ugomeki I would argue should also have an article, seeing as it's the band's very first official release. Please get back to me on the subject. AQWIKI (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats fair, but in that case I think you need to find some 3rd party coverage of the EPs so that they can satisfy WP:NALBUM. I looked but could not find any coverage of the band (I did not look super hard so I am not asserting that they do not pass WP:BAND as I think they likely do...) RP459 (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was in the process of locating those. It's a lot of research to compile. There's a lot of coverage on the band, but it's basically entirely in Japan. I have many magazine scans and the like that have multiple page interviews with the band, tour reports and advertisements so the band themselves certainly meet criteria for inclusion. Seeing as I don't speak Japanese though, it proves kind of troublesome... AQWIKI (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good but please have a look at WP:RELIABLE and WP:NONENG before going to too much trouble... RP459 (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Soundart Radio
Hi why do you wish to delete the Soundart Radio page? Why is googlenews so important, it's not relevant to UK community radio stations. There are valid links from Ofcom etc. eg http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/radiolicensing/Community/commitments/cr112.pdf Bluecinder (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Because I do not think that the article passes WP:NOTABILITY and as such should not be included in Wikipedia. RP459 (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Soundart Radio up for deletion
Hi, was wandering why the Soundart Radio page is up for deletion when there are 72 other comunity radio stations from the UK on Wikipedia and Soundart Radio's page bears similarities to all of them. It is a not for profit community organisation patroned by both Pauline Oliveros and Herbie Flowers, has relations with Sound artists and art radio all over the world and seems a perfectly valid contender for a wiki page. I find it hard to believe that all of the 72 other stations will be referenced on Google news (Pendle community radio anyone?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.196.202 (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Because I do not think that the article passes WP:NOTABILITY and as such should not be included in Wikipedia. Just because other non-notable stuff is on Wikipedia does not mean that this should be too... RP459 (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi look again at google news, a search for "soundart radio" brings up a recent collaboration with Austrian national radio station ORF1. I'd like to suggest that you are not an expert on either the UK community radio scene or radio art/ sonic arts.Bluecinder (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply I would agree with you that I am not an expert on either the UK community radio scene or radio art/ sonic arts and would further suggest that I have never claimed to be one :)  I would request that you have a look at WP:NOTABILITY I never claimed there was no coverage, only that there was none that led me to believe that this article passes WP:NOTABILITY and has local notability only. RP459 (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Soundart Radio is Patroned by Pauline Oliveros, prob one of the most important contempory composers still alive, and also Herbie Flowers (who wrote ~Walk on the Wildside with Lou Reed.) Surely this must make Soundart Radio notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.196.202 (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply I would argue that notability such as this is not inherited from and individuals patronage, please also see WP:INHERITED RP459 (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

A quick Google (other browsers are available) appears to show that licensed radio stations are automatically notable for wiki purposes unless a sub carrier/translator station. Certainly Soundart Radio is notable within wiki's criteria as it is attempting to break the mold of what broadcast media currently is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.196.202 (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply WP:BROADCAST says that radio stations may be notable but there is no presumption of notability. RP459 (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Soundart Radio is the UK's only rural Arts Based Radio Station. As such its programming is totally unique. (Notability can be established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming - from WP:Broadcast) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.196.202 (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply Sounds like reasonable grounds to me if you have reliable 3rd party sources that back up the claim. I would direct you to make your arguments on the AFD page however and likely to make an account before posting there. RP459 (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Japanese Surrender
The link to the Japanese Surrender photos was added in good faith to a gallery that I found very useful and therefore others would as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugene Russell (talk • contribs) 02:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree that they were added in good faith, but I removed them per WP:EL RP459 (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * follow up, if you think they add lots to the article why not try and add them as a reference instead, note while I assume good faith all of your contributions have been adding one site as external links inappropriately, that does make it hard to assume good faith... RP459 (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Arcadi Gaydamak
before you reverted my changes on Gaydamak may be yu should have gone through this.Premier league confirmed Alxander as the owner of portsmouth.http://www.premierleague.com/page/Headlines/0,,12306~1401503,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnyji 2k (talk • contribs) 12:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that I saw the article content change to the opposite that it has previously said and the reference stay the same so I assumed bad faith... My apologies. RP459 (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

okies,no problems mate.sunny.......... 14:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnyji 2k (talk • contribs)

Important notice about VOTE 3 in the CDA poll
You are receiving this message as you have voted in VOTE 3 at the Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll.

It has been pointed out that VOTE 3 was confusing, and that voters have been assuming that the question was about creating an actual two-phase CDA process. The question is merely about having a two-phase poll on CDA at the eventual RfC, where the community will have their vote (eg a "yes/no for CDA” poll, followed a choice of proposal types perhaps).

As I wrote the question, I'll take responsibility for the confusion. It does make sense if read through to the end, but it certainly wasn't as clear as it should have been, or needed to be!

Please amend your vote if appropriate - it seems that many (if not most) people interpreted the question in the way that was not intended.

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Robert J. Papp article
Hi. I’m confused. The editor was adding to the article exactly what you asked them to by the templates. They added references, cleaned up the text, combined several short existing sentences into a paragraph for readability, added an infobox from existing information in the article and from the references cited. Where is the original research added? Thanks. 216.142.208.222 (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You are correct there was a bunch of stuff added that I reverted the article was in violation of WP:COPYVIO from this page, my tag should have been that instead of WP:OR on the user page... You should also have a look at the WP:MOS and WP:OR as the additions seemed to include problems with both... --  RP459  Talk/Contributions 00:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hms Hood
Hi, what I was getting at with "absorb" is the absorbtion of shill-hits, so what do you mean don't absorb anything? Are they to disappear and avoid being hit at all? bigpad (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Are the ships really absorbing a hit or are they merely enduring it?  My take on it is that the hit is not being absorbed into the armor or into the ship. The above being said I do not understand what you are getting at with the shill-hits...  I have never heard the term but am not an expert on the subject. --  RP459  Talk/Contributions 22:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, they have to do both to a degree, I suppose. But battleships and battlecruisers (to a lesser extent) were designed to absorb damage caused by shells or torpedoes. Sorry about the typo last time: I meant to write "shell-hit". Some shells bounced off heavy ships' armoured belts but normally penetrated to a degree with damage hopefully contained or limited by thickness of plating, sloping structures, boxed compartments, etc. I thought your reversion was a little hasty, as "absorb" is the more normal term in this context, as I've explained, and the article had "absorb" for ages, IIRC. Regards, bigpad (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. You seem more knowledgeable on the subject than I am.  I will not revert if you change it back. --  RP459  Talk/Contributions 23:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikiout
Wuh Wuz <font color="#AA0022" face="Papyrus">Dat 23:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks I added it to the talk pages of a couple of awesome Vandalism fighters, I will take that day off :) <B>-- RP459 </B> Talk/Contributions 00:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea, I will take the day off as well. --McSly (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the welcome, PR459. I appreciate it. =) ialsoagree (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The Glendon Association Page
Can you please explain why you removed the external links on the Glendon Association's page? They had been there for some time with no problem, and were very relevant to the page. I saw the link you posted to Wikipedia's external link guidelines, and they seemed to adhere perfectly. Also, why did you put the issues box back? The issues of quality and links seem to be resolved. 98.173.202.69 (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I respectfully disagree that these are appropriate external links and would point you towards WP:ELNO which is a subpart of WP:EL


 * I removed the following three links for the following reasons:
 * www.PsychAlive.org Website affiliated with the Glendon Association
 * Is a link to an affiliated organization which does not give any information (that I can see on the linked page) about this organization.
 * Huffington Post Lisa Firestone's blog at The Huffington Post
 * Is a link to a blog.
 * Psychology Today Robert W. Firestone's blog at Psychology Today
 * Is a link to a blog.


 * My rationale behind removing the website is from WP:ELNO Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article.
 * My rationale behind removing the 2 blogs was also WP:ELNO which recommends that blogs not be used as external links.


 * As for the issues box that you removed, I agree with you that it no longer needs wikified or cleaned up and have removed those tags accordingly, but I have left the orphan tag and the ref improve tags as I believe that those are still valid. <B>--  RP459 </B> Talk/Contributions 01:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your RfA Participation
User: - Thanks for your participation in my recent successful RfA. Even though your position was neutral, your comments were constructive and welcome. As the community has expressed its trust and confidence in me, and as you are an equal part of that community, deFacto your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 10:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA
Hi RP459,

you are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;


 * Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?


 * As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).


 * Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;


 * Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?


 * Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.


 * Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3)  How to help:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;


 * Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".


 * In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).


 * Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 10:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Foot note
The foot note I placed was for Everybody, not just one person. Thank You Mlpearc (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Then why did you place it right after my comment with the indentation after my bullet? That typically signifies a reply to the comment above it...  <B>--  RP459 </B> Talk/Contributions 18:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just timming my friend, just plain old timming.Mlpearc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC).
 * Either way everyone can see it and hopefully use it in their evaluation of the notability of the article. I would request you not move the footnote but leave it where it is (as everyone can see it) to not mess up the flow of the conversation. <B>--  RP459 </B> Talk/Contributions 18:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would I erase something I'Ve posted, I think that age issue is comming into effect. Mlpearc (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood what I said above. I did not ask you to not erase it I asked you to not move it as that would disrupt the flow of the conversation.  The reason I asked that was because you mentioned that you meant it to be a footnote for everyone... As to the age issue I really do not understand that one. <B>--  RP459 </B> Talk/Contributions 19:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ferther more what does what I say to you have any merit on the article ? Mlpearc (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * None at all directly, although understand AfD is a discussion about the merits and notability of an article and that the closing administrator will evaluate all arguments based on their merit not on the number of !votes an article gets... <B>--  RP459 </B> Talk/Contributions 19:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I was going to respond, But..............Mlpearc (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I will consider this discussion closed. <B>-- RP459 </B> Talk/Contributions 19:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: heads up
Thank you. That's definately majorly bad ju-ju, especially since I think he's been the one rallying support from off-wiki.  bahamut0013  <sup style="color:#000;margin-left:-1px">words <sub style="color:#000;margin-left:-16px">deeds 19:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

?
Sorry I don't understand your last edit to my page ? Mlpearc (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It was an accident which I reverted as soon as I realized what I had done, my apologies. <B>-- RP459 </B> Talk/Contributions 21:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No worriesMlpearc (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And we are closedMlpearc (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Works for me. <B>-- RP459 </B> Talk/Contributions 22:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I Get paper
I Keep trying to get your attention by removing the deletion template on the I Get paper page so that you will answer me on the i Get Paper talk page. That didn't work and I was accused of vandalism. If I have already explained my reasons on the talk page and I can't remove the deletion template, then there's nothing else I can do except go to your talk page and answer me on the I Get Paper talk page. 206.45.0.225 (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me... When articles are tagged with AFD templates (Articles for Deletion), we do not take into consideration the contents of the talk page (that's only for ). Please see WP:AFD/I Get Paper. There, you can make your case, but please note that the consensus seems to be leaning to Delete. Please see WP:YFA for more information on starting articles. —<font face="Rage Italic" size="4" style="color:#000000;color:black">Duncan What I Do / What I Say 02:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * REPLYYou removed to WP:PROD Tag which was appropriate and talked about why you thought the article should stay on the talk page. WP:PROD which is proposed deletion is contested via removal of the Tag.  Since you contested the WP:PROD someone took the matter to Articles for Deletion WP:AFD.  The article is now under discussion at Articles_for_deletion/I_Get_Paper where the merits of keeping the article or deleting it will be discussed.  Please note that this is not a vote see WP:NOTAVOTE an administrator will evaluate all of the arguments and decide if consensus has been reached.  I cannot help you save this article myself but YOU can take your cause to the AFD page at Articles_for_deletion/I_Get_Paper however you should consider making an account if you wish to participate. <B>--  RP459 </B> Talk/Contributions 02:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome
Hey RP459, Thanks for the welcome its appreciated (Oh and those biscuts were nice) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 0zlw (talk • contribs) 08:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy on someones monobook
... since when? Since the user put it in article space not user space. I note that you have not placed rationale at the associated talk page, which is requested both in the template text and on its doc page. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed, I had not noticed that it was not in user space... the conversation continued here   as for not adding anything to the talk page I thought it unlikely that any admin would deleted a page in the user space that had the  tag on it without looking closely at the issue... <B>--  RP459 </B> Talk/Contributions 01:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Almonte, Ontario
Hello. In November 2009 you dinged this page with multiple "article issues". As the original creator this page, I agree with most of your concerns. I have since made a concerted effort to address them. Can you please review the page again and (I hope) remove your "article issues" assertion? Thank you. Beades (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep up the good work! I have removed the tags as they no longer apply to the article. <B>--  RP459 </B> Talk/Contributions 01:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Excellent. Thanks. Beades (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

-- iBen (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * <B>-- RP459 </B> Talk/Contributions 00:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks!

Final discussion for Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
 * 1) Proposal to Close This RfC
 * 2) Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip  03:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sociological question-- Be Bold!!!
Don't be afraid to boldly correct deletion tags when they are wrong. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  04:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good advice, I should have fixed the tag but I am still not sure that it is tagged correctly, I do not think A1 is the right one possibly A7.... <B>-- RP459 </B> Talk/Contributions 04:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I had not noticed that you were an admin... Why did you not just delete the article per A1? <B>--  RP459 </B> Talk/Contributions 04:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I want to give it time to develop. Someone obviously feels they have something important to write. New users are not always very adroit-- they need time. The first article I tried to create was deleted speedily because my years of experience in writing with a computer told me to save on creation. So I did. And it got deleted; and I got a snarky response when I asked. I'm a speedy deleter, not a hasty one. If it still looks like this tomorrow, I'll proceed with the deletion. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  04:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

cookies
Thanks for the cookies. you are very sweet. I think im done editing at wikipedia though. Just way to much drama. But again thanks for the nice message. its greatly appreciated. --Michelle cannon (talk) 08:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC) thats me!


 * I unfortunately understand. <B>-- RP459 </B> Talk/Contributions 18:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Template for deletion
Friendly heads-up Imagemap is deprecated and nominated for deletion. It has been superceded by changes to the File namespace and I wanted to let you know, since you have a transclusion on your userpage or user talk. If you need to respond to this message, please do so on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up I see that it links to my talk page but I cannot for the life of me find it to replace it... I do not have allot of experience with Templates and was hoping you might notice where it is so that I can replace it... <B>--  RP459 </B> Talk/Contributions 23:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Links It's linked to your talk page by virtue of the notice I wrote above. Prior to that, it was (and is) in User:RP459/Yes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL I did not make it far enough down the page of "what links here" :) thanks I have CSD'd that page and have no objections to the deletion of the template as a result (I will not be participating in the discussion) <B>-- RP459 </B> Talk/Contributions 00:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the welcome message and the cookies! :). I will let you know if any issues arise while editing Wikipedia, as they have in the past when I had past accounts, and hopefully be able to get advice on the issue, whatever it may be! Queen cat (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Thekohser
I've undone this edit of yours. "Edits by a banned user may be reverted" doesn't translate to "edits by a banned user must be reverted", let alone "edits to the userpage of a banned user by somebody else must be reverted". All that edit did was remove a couple of line breaks and correct the list of articles created; there's no possible way you could consider it disruptive. – iride  scent  23:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I did not see the point of the changes that were made so I undid them... <B>-- RP459 </B> Talk/Contributions 00:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Without biting your head off, I don't understand why you'd revert changes to a user's page simply because you didn't see the point of them. We're supposed to revert as a last resort. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester  00:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Very true, I agree that it was a mistake. My comment above was not meant to defend my action, only to let Iridescent know why I did it...  <B>--  RP459 </B> Talk/Contributions 00:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Plus, this wasn't a cosmetic change; your reversion removed corrections to the list of articles created. Greg may be banned now, but there's no sense not crediting him for the articles created before he was banned, especially given that he was banned for unusual internal-political reasons, not the 'standard' vandalism. Also, given the history it's important that his articles be easily identifiable if needed. As per Firsfron I can't see why you'd revert something just because you "can't see the point of it". No harm done, though. – iride  scent  00:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I had not thought of that I will be more careful in the future in this regard. <B>-- RP459 </B> Talk/Contributions 00:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)